China-Solomons pact: US says lack of transparency is big concern about security agreement
China’s with the Solomon Islands shows a “complete lack of transparency”, and the US will respond to any attempt by Beijing to establish a military presence in the , a senior US official said on Tuesday., assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said the US did not ask countries to choose between the United States and China, but instead hoped all countries could make their own decisions free from coercion.
, led by National Security Council Indo-Pacific Coordinator Kurt Campbell, visited the Solomon Islands on Friday, days after Honiara confirmed it had signed a security agreement with Beijing. No details of the pact have been officially released by either party.
Kritenbrink said that during the meeting between US officials and the Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, the US said it would have “significant concerns” and would respond naturally if there were moves to establish a de facto permanent military presence, power projection capabilities or a military installation.
The purpose of the trip was to “communicate in a very candid way the concerns that we have about the security agreement that they concluded with China”, he said, adding that the Solomon Islands had given assurances there would be no such military base.
“We’ve indicated that we will continue to monitor the situation closely and continue to engage with them going forward.” He did not offer details of what the US would do if a military base was built in the Solomons. The “complete lack of transparency behind this agreement” was the fundamental concern, Kritenbrink said.
“What precisely are the motivations behind the agreement? What exactly are China’s objectives? “I think they’re completely unclear because this agreement has not been scrutinised or viewed or subject to any kind of consultation or approval process by anyone else,” Kritenbrink said.
While details of the agreement have not been released, a draft of the deal – leaked in March by political opponents of Sogavare – suggested the Solomons would allow China’s navy to dock in the islands and for Beijing to deploy its police and armed forces there.
Sogavare has said the deal would allow Chinese police to protect Chinese-financed infrastructure projects after violence erupted in his country late last year between protesters and police, causing millions of dollars in damage.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said on Monday that speculation that China would build a military base in the Solomon Islands was “pure disinformation fabricated by a handful of people who harbour ulterior motives”. In 2019, the island nation broke diplomatic ties with Taiwan and recognised Beijing.
Regarding Taiwan, Kritenbrink said the US would continue to advocate for “friends” in the region to seek deeper ties with Taiwan, which he called a leading democracy and a critical economic and security partner.
“The United States is not in the business of asking countries to choose between the United States and China. But … we want all countries to have choices and have say over their own sovereignty and the ability to make their own decisions without coercion,” he said.
He said the US had outlined tangible benefits for countries in the region that worked with the US on a range of issues around economic trade and tackling global challenges – including climate change and Covid-19 – and will move forward in that way.
Kritenbrink said the US’ relationship with the Solomon Islands was “bigger than this security agreement”. “Our commitment to the region is strong and enduring,” he said, adding that there were signs of strong demand in the region for greater US engagement. He said the US would continue to respond to those demand signals in robust ways.
Non paywall:
A collection of good reactions that I agree with copy pasted from several readers from SCMP..
'Reaction 1: A lack of transparency? US and Australia feel France pain now?'
'Reaction 2: Now tell me how different is the US position to that of Putin's? Shameful that high level US officials deem it necessary to bully and threaten to invade a tiny impoverished, independent nation of Solomon Islands. Not a single US main street media is highlighting this double standard by the US. "....and the US will respond to any attempt by Beijing to establish a military presence in the Pacific island country, a senior US official said on Tuesday."
'Reaction 3: Who is this bozo to tell the Solomon Islands that its security agreement with China "lacks transparency"? Transparency to whom? The US? The Solomon PM answers to his people, not the US. Another w country showing condescenion to a non-w country. "Solomon Islands prime minister says foreign criticism of China security deal ‘very insulting’" - Gurdian.
'Reaction 4: US does not ask countries to choose between the US and China but hopes they can decide while free from coercion....... that is coersion from US to Solomon Island'
'Reaction 5: "Daniel Kritenbrink says US does not ask countries to choose between the US and China but hopes they can decide while free from coercion" ... absolutely laughable statement! In the meantime, the US is threatening sanctions (and worse) against India and China for buying energy from Russia.'
'Reaction 6: Hahaha...If this is the best excuse that US could come up with, lack of transparency, to bully a tiny island country Solomon, you know US was caught red-faced. All others, like Australia, Japan, etc...are just extras, useless.'
'Reaction 7: There was a great transparency in the AUKUS deal. Just ask the French!'
'Reaction 8: It is still the same old story - the USA needs to know everything( read transparency) from you, but the USA would not let you know everything(read national security)about itself.'
.
